Obama going to Saudi Arabia, will skip Auschwitz liberation anniversary
Having
blown off France two weeks ago, Barack
HUSSEIN Obama will
skip the Taj Mahal next week to
visit the new king of Saudi Arabia. In case that doesn't make his priorities clear enough, the President of the United States will then
skip the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
This is from the third link.
World leaders have been streaming into the country to pay their
respects to the powerful kingdom, which controls one of the world's
largest reserves of oil. The late King Abdullah had been a close friend
of the United States, but the new king, Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud is
less known in the West.
The president has been on a bad streak of late. He skipped the Paris
march after the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, instead
watching NFL playoof football. The White House later acknowledged that
it should have sent someone with a "higher profile" than just the U.S.
ambassador to France.
Then this week, the White House announced that Obama will not see the
Israeli Prime Minister on his March visit to address Congress, calling
the invitation from House Speaker John Boehner a breach of protocol. But
the president did make time on Thursday to visit with a YouTube star
who once took a bath in a tub filled with milk and Fruit Loops,
prompting much ridicule.
Now, with the change announced Saturday by the White House, Biden will
stay in Washington as Obama makes the trip to Saudi Arabia.
But once again, Obama will be a day late and a dollar short. He won't
stop in Riyadh until Tuesday, while Russia's Prime Minister Dmitry
Medvedev, Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, French President
Francois Hollande and Japan's Crown Prince Naruhito will visit on
Saturday and Sunday to offer condolences.
Well, maybe Obama is afraid that Hollande will treat him about as well as Netanyahu does.
And then there's the
Auschwitz snub.
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will represent the United States at the
70th anniversary ceremony for the liberation of the Auschwitz
concentration camp on Tuesday—rather than President Barack Obama or Vice
President Joe Biden—while other countries are slated to send their
heads of state.
Tuesday’s ceremony will likely be the last major anniversary where a
significant number of survivors of the Nazi camp are present. About 300
are expected to attend, and most of them are in their 90s or older than
100. Nazi authorities killed 1.1 million people at the camp, mostly Jews, which was liberated by the Soviet army in January 1945.
The New York Times reported on the foreign dignitaries that would be present:
A preliminary list of those attending includes President
François Hollande of France, President Joachim Gauck of Germany and
President Heinz Fischer of Austria, as well as King Philippe of Belgium,
King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands and Crown Prince Frederik of
Denmark. The United States delegation will be led by Treasury Secretary
Jacob J. Lew.
The White House claims that Obama will be in India on a 'long-scheduled' trip. As if they didn't know when the liberation of Auschwitz took place. At least he'll avoid Hollande there too.
Labels: Auschwitz, Barack Hussein Obama, France, Francois Hollande, India, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Abdullah, Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, Taj Mahal
Saudi King Abdullah: Current Gaza war a collective massacre solely caused by Hamas
A stunning turnaround took place in Saudi Arabia on Friday with
Saudi King Abdullah placing on Hamas the exclusive blame for what he called a collective massacre in Gaza,
Abdullah’s statement, read by a news anchor on behalf of the ailing
90-year old Monarch, that the violence in Gaza has led to “various
forms” of terrorism, whether from groups, organizations, or states, is
seen in the Middle East and Arab states as a flat-out repudiation of Hamas.
Perhaps even more remarkable, while King Abdullah condemned the
consequences of a war he termed “devastating” to Palestinians, he issued
no demands upon Israel.
As has been pointed out numerous times by Breitbart contributors,
Saudi Arabia’s now open disavowal of any common cause with Hamas
reinforces an emerging and wholly improbable new alliance uniting every
Arab state save Qatar together with Israel and against the United
States.
As remarkable as was King Abdullah’s statement by itself, it pales in
comparison with the transformation of the relationship between Egypt
and Israel. From cold no-belligerents under President Mubarak, to near
antagonists under the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohammed Morsi,
today Israel and Egypt are tightly cleaved military allies.
In the harshest words ever used by a Saudi King to condemn any
Palestinian “resistance” to what is routinely called “Zionist
aggression,” King Abdullah’s statement said, “It is shameful and
disgraceful that these terrorists are doing this in the name of
religion, killing the people whose killing Allah has forbidden, and
mutilating their bodies and feeling proud in publishing this.”
The king went on to say of Hamas’ war against Israel, “They have
distorted the image of Islam with its purity and humanity and smeared it
with all sorts of bad qualities by their actions, injustice and
crimes.”
Unlike President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, the
guardian of Islam’s holy places and thus the putative leader of the
entire Muslim world, King Abdullah did not call upon Israel to meet any
Hamas demands. He made no calls for “opening up border passages” between
Gaza and Israel/Egypt-- thought by many to be the primary strategic
objective of Hamas’ war.
He issued no demands that Hamas be permitted to build a seaport, let
alone that Israel and Egypt be required to help fund it. Nor did he
petition Israel or the Palestinian Authority to resume cash payments to
the more than 44,000 Hamas "civil servants" in Gaza rendered jobless as a result of the recent PA-Hamas unity government agreement.
Wow.
Labels: civilian casualties, Gaza, Hamas, human shields, IDF, Operation Protective Edge, Saudi King Abdullah
Kerry to be forced to take step back?
Here's a cartoon from
Haaretz. Will John Kerry be forced to take a step back in order to get a framework agreement (which is all he is now seeking)?
Thankfully,
Kerry has left our region without a framework deal.
With the US remaining tight-lipped about the details, little news has
filtered out about Kerry's proposals to bridge the huge gaps between the
two sides as they seek to draw up the contours of two states living
side-by-side.
But talks appear to have focused on security in the Jordan Valley, on
the border between the West Bank and Jordan, as well as the fate of
Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their future capital.
Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be key to any deal.
Not only does Jordan border the occupied West Bank, it also has a
historic role in the guardianship of Muslim sites in Israeli-annexed
Arab east Jerusalem which is recognised under their 1994 peace treaty,.
Saudi Arabia authored a 2002 peace plan which is the basis of Arab aspirations for any settlements.
Kerry emerged from talks at the secluded desert residence of Saudi King
Abdullah late Sunday to say he had won the support of the influential
Arab leader.
"His Majesty was not just encouraging, but supported our efforts and
hopes that we can be successful in the days ahead and believes that this
is important for the region and that there are great benefits that will
come to everybody if we're able to be successful," Kerry said.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal agreed it had been "an excellent meeting."
Even Kerry is acknowledging that his efforts might not succeed.
"But I cannot tell you when particularly the last pieces may decide to
fall into place or may fall on the floor and leave the puzzle
unfinished. That's exactly what makes this such a challenge, and also so
interesting at the same time."
The puzzle pieces that fall onto the floor are apparently of no concern to Kerry. But here in Israel, at Ground Zero, we worry that those puzzle pieces are going to cost a lot of lives, God Forbid.
What could go wrong?
Labels: John Kerry, Jordan, Jordanian King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Abdullah
What Israel could learn from the Saudis
Israel could learn a lot from how the Saudis are handling President Hussein Obama. Noting that Obama cracks under pressure,
the Saudis are leaning on him... hard.
The Saudis
are starting to push back hard.
Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar
bin Sultan told European diplomats that Riyadh is contemplating a “major shift”
away from the US over Washington’s policies on a host of issues, including
Syria.
That message reflected the views not just of Prince Bandar, a
noted hawk on Middle East issues and outspoken former ambassador to Washington,
but of King Abdullah and the rest of the Saudi leadership, diplomatic sources in
the Gulf said.
While Saudi Arabia’s frustration with the US was real and
has led it to explore alternatives to its 70-year dependence on their strategic
alliance, nobody seriously thinks Saudi cooperation with Washington will cease,
the sources said.
Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Saban Center for
Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, who previously served as US
deputy assistant secretary of defense and a senior director at the National
Security Council, told The Jerusalem Post that the Saudis are upset that Obama
is unwilling to take a stronger stance against the Iranian-Syrian
alliance.
“The failure to support the Syrian rebels is a big part of the
story, but the Saudis also see a general tilt in American policy in favor of
Iran and away from the traditional allies of the United States,” said
Doran.
Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for
Strategic Studies (BESA), told the Post that the Saudis are not the only ones
bewildered by Obama’s conduct in the Middle East.
“Their exasperation
with American weakness is clear.
Their fear of Washington striking a
grand bargain with Tehran is evident.
Unfortunately, there is no real
alternative to American involvement and the Saudis as well as others have no
real other choice but to wait until Obama is gone,” said Inbar.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, Saudi King Abdullah
Should we laugh or cry?
'Our friends the Saudis,' the nurturers of 19 out of the 20 9/11 hijackers, have donated
$100 million to the United Nations' counterterrorism efforts. Here's US Secretary of State John Kerry.
We welcome and applaud today’s $100 million donation by His Majesty
King Abdullah, on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to the UN Centre
on Counterterrorism (UNCCT).
His Majesty’s generous donation, on the occasion of Eid al Fitr,
demonstrates once again the Kingdom’s commitment to supporting
multilateral institutions and strengthening international cooperation on
counterterrorism.
With these funds, we hope that the UN Counterterrorism Implementation
Task Force (UNCTITF), of which the Centre is a critical component, can
intensify its work to provide countries with the long
-
term capacity building
support they need to implement the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy.
The UN can't even define terrorism, let alone effectively fight against it. It has too many members who are complicit in terrorism.
What could go wrong?
Labels: 9/11, Islamic terrorism, John Kerry, our friends the Saudis, Saudi King Abdullah
Abu Mazen about to back out of 'peace talks'?
On Tuesday, 'm
oderate' '
Palestinian' President
Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen suddenly canceled a meeting with his Fatah faction that was to plan for the 'second round' of 'talks' with Israel on August 14, and
flew off to Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah bin Abdel
Aziz.
No reason was given for the cancellation of the meeting. And Abu Mazen may not meet with King Abdullah until Sunday, such that he could have both held the meeting and met with the King.
So what's going on?
However, sources in Ramallah said that the meeting
could take place after the Muslim feast of Id al-Fitr, which begins Thursday and
ends on Sunday.
The sources said that Abbas may have called off the
meeting due to growing opposition in the PLO and Fatah to his decision to resume
the peace talks without a settlement freeze and Israeli acceptance of the
pre-1967 lines as the basis for a two-state solution.
PA officials have
condemned recent Israeli plans to continue building housing units in east
Jerusalem and some settlements in the West Bank.
Abu Mazen is looking for Saudi backing to (a) back out of his agreement to accept only the 'terrorist release' without the other demands or (b) to back out of the talks, and in each case not to be blamed by the Americans.
If Abu Mazen backs out of the talks now, the streets are likely to explode and the US Congress is likely to severely restrict the Obama junta's ability to aid the 'Palestinians.'
Hmmm.
If he's going to do this, he should at least do it before we release any terrorists. We are scheduled to release terrorists on the 13th, which is next Tuesday.
Labels: 1949 armistice lines, Abu Mazen, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, Middle East peace process, Palestinian terrorists, Saudi King Abdullah, settlement freeze
Saudi King clinically dead
Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz is
clinically dead according to the pan-Arabic daily
Al-Sharq il-Awsat.
His reported brain death occurred following complicated back surgery
that took place in Riyadh on November 17 at the National Guard's King
Abdulaziz Medical City, according to the report, and the king's aides
claimed he is in good health.
Nevertheless, medical sources told the newspaper the monarch's condition was “expected to change soon.”
Abdullah has been upon the throne since 2005. The crown has passed
down through a line of sons since the death in 1953 of the founder of
the kingdom, Abdulaziz Ibn Saud.
The king's brother, Crown Prince Salman, defense minister of Saudi
Arabia, reassured the nation and members of the Gulf Cooperation Council
meeting Riyadh “good news that he is well and in good health.” Thirteen
years his junior, Salman also “reassured” Saudis about the monarch's
health the day before at a cabinet meeting, according to the SPA state news agency.
Salman has been designated Abdullah's successor.
Hmmm.
Labels: our friends the Saudis, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Abdullah
Saudi King tells Russian President talks on Syria 'futile'
Saudi King Abdullah has told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that it is '
futile' to talk with Medvedev's good friend, Bashar al-Assad (Hat Tip:
MFS - The Other News).
Saudi’s King Abdullah told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday that dialogue on Syria was “futile,” the official SPA news agency reported, hinting at the need for action to halt the bloodshed.
Russia should have “coordinated with the Arabs... before using the veto” to block a resolution on Syria in the U.N. Security Council, King Abdullah was quoted as saying.
“But now, dialogue about what is happening in Syria is futile,” the Saudi monarch told Medvedev in a telephone discussion on the escalating bloodshed.
According to the report, the king told Medvedev that Saudi Arabia “will never abandon its religious and moral obligations towards what’s happening.”
The Kremlin released a statement earlier on Wednesday saying the two leaders exchanged views about the situation in the Middle East in light of the events in Syria, but gave no further details.
Don't expect a Russian
mea culpa. That won't happen. But perhaps in a few weeks it will be possible to introduce another UN resolution if the Chinese can also be brought to task.
In the meantime, the civil war in Syria will continue.
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Dmitry Medvedev, Russian veto, Saudi King Abdullah, Syrian uprising
Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Tuesday, February 21.
A deceitful ploy by a columnist and a prince - ten years on
In early February, 2002, Thomas Friedman wrote a column, Dear Arab League, pretending to be a letter to the Arab League from then-President Bush. The key lines are:
You need to face up to something: Ehud Barak gave us an Israeli peace plan, however rough. Bill Clinton then followed up with an American peace plan. Now is the time for an Arab peace plan. No more you guys sitting back complaining about everyone else's peace plans. It's time for you to put on the table not only what you want from Israel -- an end to occupation -- but what you collectively are ready to give in return. Arafat can't do it alone.
You know what bugs me, guys? You want to pretend that Sharon just reappeared from outer space and that's when all the trouble started, and I'm just supporting him for no reason. That's not what happened. Sharon was unelectable in Israeli politics. What allowed him to re-emerge was Arafat's rejection of the Barak plan and the Clinton plan, and then his launching of an intifada with suicide bombings of Israeli pizza parlors.
The column would have been forgettable if not for Friedman's follow up column, on February 17, 2002, An intriguing signal from the Saudi Crown Prince:
Earlier this month, I wrote a column suggesting that the 22 members of the Arab League, at their summit in Beirut on March 27 and 28, make a simple, clear-cut proposal to Israel to break the Israeli-Palestinian impasse: In return for a total withdrawal by Israel to the June 4, 1967, lines, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the 22 members of the Arab League would offer Israel full diplomatic relations, normalized trade and security guarantees. Full withdrawal, in accord with U.N. Resolution 242, for full peace between Israel and the entire Arab world. Why not?
I am currently in Saudi Arabia on a visit -- part of the Saudi opening to try to explain themselves better to the world in light of the fact that 15 Saudis were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. So I took the opportunity of a dinner with Saudi Arabia's crown prince, and de facto ruler, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, to try out the idea of this Arab League proposal. I knew that Jordan, Morocco and some key Arab League officials had been talking about this idea in private but had not dared to broach it publicly until one of the ''big boys'' -- Saudi Arabia or Egypt -- took the lead.
After I laid out this idea, the crown prince looked at me with mock astonishment and said, ''Have you broken into my desk?''
The column was a news event. A columnist had proposed a peace plan that had been agreed to by the Saudi Crown Prince. Propelled by the self interested follow up "reporting" by the New York Times, the President found the idea to be interesting. The Israelis were skeptical. For the next few weeks Crown Prince Abdullah toured the Middle East to build support for his proposal ahead of the Arab League meeting. He received support though some of it was qualified.
Interestingly, the Security Council refused to endorse the proposal.
The Saudi plan for putting an end to conflict in the Middle East, based on Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories in return for normal relations with Arab nations, is not likely to be endorsed quickly by the Security Council, diplomats said here today.
Even leaving aside the contradictory reactions the proposal has elicited from the Israeli government and Palestinians, there may be obstacles created by the plan itself as backed by the summit-level meeting of Arab leaders in Beirut.
Some provisions in the plan run counter to existing Security Council resolutions, an official here said. Among these is the call by the Saudi plan for an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. The Council does not consider Israel to be in control of any Lebanese land after the Israeli withdrawal from the border area two years ago. In Beirut this week, Lebanon revived its claim to a small part of the Israeli-held Golan Heights known as the Sheba Farms.
This was the real deal killer. According to the UN Israel had fully withdrawn from Lebanon two years earlier. However in order to get support from Bashar Assad, Abdullah agreed to include language calling on Israel to withdraw also from Lebanese territory. Shebaa Farms had been captured from Syria in 1967, so Syria was effectively ceding territory to Lebanon for no purpose other than to maintain Lebanon's grievance against Israel! In other words, the Arab League proposal effectively declared a concrete Israeli effort to make peace null and void, retroactively.
The general problem with the Arab League proposal was that it was always very specific and concrete in its demands of Israel but nebulous in terms of what the Arab League promised in return.Why, for example, didn't the initiative include an immediate commitment to allow the Mogen David Adom membership in the International Committee of the Red Cross? That could have been done as a "confidence building measure" on humanitarian grounds. If the peace initiative were sincere it would have shown some flexibility.
In 2005, Israel withdrew its citizens from Gaza. This was a step that was demanded by the Saudi "peace initiative." How did the Arab world react? Here's how the New York Times described the reaction:
Yet whatever brief elation was felt in the early days of the pullout was exceeded by fear that Israel's move might in fact hamper the longer term prospect for a Palestinian state to be created in Gaza and the West Bank. The pullout may have put pressure on Arab governments, which will find it hard to demand further concessions from the Israeli government soon.
''Sharon trumped them,'' said Mohammed al Ameer, political editor at the Saudi daily Al Riyadh. ''The Arabs are in a difficult position now because they have been presented with an olive branch and must do something in return.''
The pullout also hampers the propaganda war in the Arab world. Gaza, the site of some of the most violent clashes between Palestinians and Israelis, has become synonymous with the Israeli occupation, images of which have been beamed into Arab homes nightly. With ostensibly fewer confrontations and fewer images of violence in Gaza, the Palestinians' case against Israel becomes less telegenic, if not less immediate.
If the initiative had been sincere the Arabs shouldn't have felt "pressure" to do anything. They should have applauded unreservedly. Israel had just fulfilled one of the demands the Arab Leagues was making for peace and according to this, the Arab world was more concerned with its lessened ability to wage a propaganda war against Israel! Of course there was no reciprocal gesture to Israel to demonstrate the Arab League's approval of the withdrawal from Gaza.
The past year, however has demonstrated another problem with the initiative - many of the dictators who were offering the initiative, have been shown to be quite unpopular at home. What if Israel had agreed to terms with the Arabs and withdrawn from all territory captured in 1967, where would Israel be now if the new leaders said, "That's what Qaddafi/Mubarak/Saleh ... agreed to, we are no longer obligated by the terms of the treaty?"
Indeed, Friedman himself, in a column End of Mideast Wholesale, last year, wrote:
Let’s start with Israel. For the last 30 years, Israel enjoyed peace with Egypt wholesale — by having peace with just one man, Hosni Mubarak. That sale is over. Today, post-Mubarak, to sustain the peace treaty with Egypt in any kind of stable manner, Israel is going to have to pay retail. It is going to have to make peace with 85 million Egyptians. The days in which one phone call by Israel to Mubarak could shut down any crisis in relations are over.
In other words, if Egyptians don't like the Camp David Accords, it's up to Israel to make further concessions in order to mollify them.
This suggests a larger question that Friedman never addresses. He was promoting the Saudi Peace Initiative as recently as September, 2010. If Friedman, as his recent writings suggest, really believes that the unelected despots have no legitimacy, how would he view agreements that they made? His reaction to Egypt suggests that he believes that the Arab commitments to Israel to be reversible, opening Israel up to untold future demands in the name of "peace."
Ten years later, it is impossible to look back at the Arab Peace Initiative and conclude that it was anything other than a scarcely disguised public relations event designed to rehabilitate Saudi Arabia's image and put diplomatic pressure on Israel.
Since then Thomas Friedman won his third Pulitzer (probably in part due to this stunt) and Crown Prince Abdullah officially succeeded his half brother to the throne. It took until December 2005, for Israel to defeat the so-called "Aqsa intifada." In the meantime, Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas had regularly turned down peace proposals offered by Israel.
In other words, the past ten years have exposed the Arab Peace Initiative as an empty fraud. It may have benefited the principles - Friedman and Abdullah - with at least some good press, but their own actions subsequently have demonstrated that even they never really ever believed in it.
Labels: Middle East Media Sampler, Saudi King Abdullah, Saudi plan, Soccer Dad, Tom Friedman
Look who wants to unite the World's religions against atheism
Hypocrisy, thy name is
Abdullah.
By the way, they
won't even let me in to Saudi Arabia.
I wonder what he said to the Pope.
Labels: hypocrisy, Saudi King Abdullah
Time for Obama to drop the focus on the 'Palestinians'
Michael Doran, a former senior director for the Middle East at the U.S. National Security Council, and the Roger Hertog senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, has the 'Left' credentials that may stand a chance of convincing Barack Hussein Obama to listen. Doran urges the Obama administration to
drop the focus on the Israeli-'Palestinian' dispute and take care of what's really important: dealing with all the Muslim v. Muslim disputes in the region.
At the heart of Obama's grand strategy was a mistaken definition of the strategic challenge. Now that the Arab uprisings have dragged the United States through a crash course on Middle Eastern realities, U.S. policymakers can more easily recognize the deepest drivers of politics in the region -- namely, the vast number of severe conflicts that set Muslims against Muslims. From a practical strategic point of view, there is no such thing as "the Muslim world." Any effort to write a narrative of cooperation with a thing that does not actually exist is bound to encounter severe difficulties.
The United States must therefore dispense entirely with grand strategies that seek to foster a conciliatory image of the United States and to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead, it should focus on the key challenge posed by the Arab uprisings: managing intra-Muslim conflict.
This requires returning to the question that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah first posed to Obama: What is the strategy of the United States toward Iran? At stake in Syria today is nothing less than the future of the Iranian regional security system. It should not escape notice that the Saudis, though hostile to the populist wave in general, have now aligned themselves against Assad. As much as they fear revolution, the Saudis fear the Islamic Republic of Iran even more, and they see the Syrian crisis as an opportunity to deal a severe blow to it. The United States should adopt a similar view.
The contest on the ground in Syria, obviously, has profoundly local causes. Nevertheless, the regional struggle between Iran and its rivals will play a significant role in shaping it. After Assad falls, a proxy war will erupt, with outside powers seeking to cultivate Syrian clients. Iran and Hezbollah will use the covert and brutal methods that they have honed in Lebanon and Iraq. They will preserve what they can from the remnants of Assad's security services, while simultaneously arming and training new proxies. They will kill off and intimidate those Syrians who get in their way.
The United States has a vital interest in thwarting Iran. To do so effectively, however, it must develop a serious and sustained regional containment strategy. The process of writing the new strategy begins, like before, in Riyadh and Ankara. This time, however, Obama should reverse his attitude toward the preferences of King Abdullah and Prime Minister Erdogan. The Syrian crisis offers a new opportunity to reach a strategic accommodation with the Saudis. At the same time, it should also force Washington to re-evaluate the Turks' no-problems policy. To date, this policy has worked to the net benefit of Iran and Syria and to the detriment of the United States. There is no reason to believe that it will produce a different result in the future.
Writing a new grand strategy is important, but not urgent. It can always be put off until tomorrow, "when things calm down." In the meantime, the phone is ringing. The world was treated to images of cheering Libyans retaking their capital on Aug. 21; the United States will surely be called upon to play a role in the messy political transition that will follow. The Aug. 18 terrorist attack in Israel has raised the specter of another Gaza war, while also escalating tensions with Egypt. And next month, the question of Palestinian statehood may well be taken up by the United Nations.
These and many other matters will soon fill up the calendar of U.S. officials. But if Washington is not careful, all these urgent issues will push aside consideration of grand strategy, precisely when it is needed most.
I look at this as Obama's last chance to prove that he can get beyond the radical politics of his pre-White House period to put America's interests ahead of the parochial interests of the small circle of people who put him where he is today: The Rashid Khalidi's, Jeremiah Wright's, Billy Ayers's and Ali Abunimah's of the world. I don't hold out much hope. Obama is who he is. Hopefully, Americans will realize that before they decide to elect him (God forbid) to a second term. He's not capable of thinking beyond the strategies of a Chicago community organizer.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Iran, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Muslim v. Muslim disputes, our friends the Saudis, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Saudi King Abdullah
Saudi Arabia withdrawing ambassador from Syria
It's a sad commentary on the lack of American leadership in foreign affairs that 'our friends, the Saudis' are taking the lead to do what America should have done weeks ago. After 70 more people were killed by the Syrian army on Sunday, the Saudis have announced that they are
calling home their ambassador from Syria for consultations. When will Obama and Clinton wake up and do the same?
"What is happening in Syria is not acceptable for Saudi Arabia," [Saudi King Abdullah] said in a written statement read out on Al Arabiya satellite television. "Syria should think wisely before it's too late and issue and enact reforms that are not merely promises but actual reforms," he said. "Either it chooses wisdom on its own or it will be pulled down into the depths of turmoil and loss."
'Leading from behind' isn't leading at all Barack. What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Hillary Clinton, Saudi King Abdullah, Syrian uprising
Did the Saudis (order Pakistan to) sell out Bin Laden?
Osama Bin Laden apparently lived in Pakistan for much of the past ten years. With all due respect to President Obama's pride in the US forces who got Bin Laden, it should be obvious to all that the United States suddenly found Bin Laden now because someone chose to turn him in. But who? Asia Times' Spengler blog believes that Bin Laden's activities in Yemen were threatening Saudi interests, and therefore
the Saudis ordered the Pakistanis - who may yet be the principal Sunni ally for Saudi Arabia - to turn Bin Laden in.
In short, while al-Qaeda had drawn funding from both Saudi and Iranian sources, in present circumstances its activity tended to serve Iranian rather than Saudi interests. Support for terrorism, moreover, is a two-way street: precisely because Saudi Arabia was "a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda", Saudi intelligence knows something about the recipients of their money.
The Saudis, moreover, have an interest in cleaning up the terrorist associations of the Pakistani military. As the Saudi cold war with Iran grows increasingly hot, Riyadh may look towards Islamabad for military support. Asia Times Online has reported that the Bahrain National Guard already is recruiting Pakistani mercenaries. (See Pakistan ready for Middle East role, April 2.)
And there is speculation that Saudi Arabia in a pinch might ask for Pakistani troops, and also that Riyadh might source nuclear weapons technology from Pakistan to counter Iran's nuclear program. Where else might the Saudis go for support in a war with Iran? The Saudis cannot trust the United States. King Abdullah reportedly was enraged that Obama pulled the rug out from under Mubarak, a longstanding American ally. And they cannot trust the Turks, who have become the region's spoiler.
Pakistan's military capacity and urgent need for money make it the Sunni power most amenable to Saudi interests. That is one more reason to clear the deck of unreliable elements like Bin Laden.
Ironically, Bin Laden appears to be a casualty in the great Arab breakdown of 2011. We can only guess as to the details of his demise, and may never know the entire truth. But it is a fair conclusion that he was crushed between the tectonic plates now shifting in the Muslim world.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Obama, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Saudi King Abdullah
Israel urging Obama to commit to intervene to save the Saudis
Would Barack Obama
abandon Saudi King Abdullah to a 'popular uprising'? According to Ted Koppel, that's just one of the scenarios keeping Israel's leadership up at night (Hat Tip:
Daily Alert).
Hearing Israeli leaders express grave concerns about Iran and its nuclear potential is nothing new. What is new is a growing worry that America's adversaries will be less inclined to take warnings from Washington seriously. Each week that passes without the overthrow or elimination of Moammar Gadhafi is perceived in Jerusalem as emboldening the leadership of Iran and North Korea."Imagine," one source told me, "how Gadhafi must be kicking himself for giving up the development of Libya's nuclear program."
The Israeli government is so concerned that America's adversaries may miscalculate U.S. intentions that it is privately urging Washington to make it clear that the U.S. would intervene in Saudi Arabia should the survival of that government be threatened. That is, after all, what President George H.W. Bush did more than 20 years ago when Saddam Hussein ordered Iraqi forces into Kuwait and moved forces in the direction of Saudi Arabia. "This," President Bush said on more than one occasion, "will not stand." And it didn't.
Given the current wide range of U.S. responses to public upheavals throughout North Africa and the Persian Gulf, the Israelis are convinced that the principle needs to be unambiguously restated, if only as a reminder that Washington knows where its critical national interests lie. Absent such a public recommitment, they worry that Iran will be encouraged to even greater mischief. Wherever there is a restive and newly active Shiite minority, as for example in Bahrain, a mere causeway from the coast of Saudi Arabia, Tehran can be expected to provide assistance and stir the pot.
Just as enemies such as Iran need to be cautioned, America's traditional allies need to be reassured. That's why Israeli officials are recommending a Marshall Plan for Egypt. The overthrow of Hosni Mubarak may have been no loss in the annals of democracy, but under Mr. Mubarak Egypt was a pillar of stability and a reliable if not always warm partner for Israel. Egypt's political future at this time is uncertain enough; the Israelis believe it is essential to prevent its economic collapse. The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into Egypt since Anwar Sadat made peace with Israel, and senior Israeli officials believe the economic spigot should remain wide open.
With almost no margin for error, the Israelis have long been among the world's foremost pragmatists. While I was in Jerusalem, events in Syria were coming to a boil. Since the Syrians are closely allied with Israel's bitterest enemies—Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hezbollah's main sponsor, Iran—one might expect Israeli leaders to take some comfort in seeing the regime of Bashar Assad in trouble. But here, too, the Israelis are far more comfortable with stability on their borders. Assad, like his father before him, has maintained an uneasy truce along Syria's border with Israel, despite Israel's continued occupation of the Golan Heights.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Binyamin Netanyahu, Egyptian regime change, Saudi King Abdullah, Syrian uprising
Now is the time to pressure 'our friends the Saudis'
Mitchell Bard points out that in the past 70 years, only one American President has pressured 'our friends the Saudis.' John Kennedy forced them to (officially, at least) abolish slavery in the 1960's.
But Bard says
now is the time to pressure them again.
Now why doesn’t Obama call for democracy in Saudi Arabia? One reason is fear. While the administration is happy to ignore warnings about the possibility of a radical Islamist regime taking power in Egypt, the administration is petrified of that happening in Saudi Arabia. But could a different regime be worse than the Sauds who undermine American interests and values in the region and threaten our security as the leading sponsors of international terror.
Oil, of course, is the entire reason for our interest in Saudi Arabia. What would a different regime do with the oil if not sell it to us? Drink it? Our fear of losing access to oil, however, has allowed the Saudis to blackmail us for 70 years. They act like pushers, manipulating the supply of oil to discourage us from pursuing alternative energy sources. Thus, when prices peaked at $149 per barrel, the Saudis said the ideal price of oil was $70-$80. The average price last year - $79 per barrel. The Saudi oil minister recently made a similar remark and pledged to increase supply to make up for price spikes created by turmoil in Libya and elsewhere in the region. The message to Obama is that the Saudi monarchy will help his reelection bid by minimizing the oil shock to the U.S. economy. Why rock the boat by pushing for democracy?
Meanwhile, inside Saudi Arabia, the king is staving off any democratic insurrections the way his family has kept power since the establishment of the kingdom - by buying loyalty. The Sauds have stayed in power by marrying their rivals and paying them off. This is why there are thousands of princes who all drink from the royal trough and benefit from oil profits as well as the commissions they receive on deals made with foreign countries. To further ensure that Saudis don’t get too inspired by events elsewhere, the king has announced minimal political reforms while pledging $35 billion in new government benefits. He has also banned demonstrations.
The Saudis are certainly scared. They saw Obama abandon a long-time ally overnight. They already believe he is weak and have doubts whether he will keep their heads on their shoulders because of his failure to take military action against Iran. They also see the restive Shiite population in their neighbor Bahrain making trouble for the Sunni government there which may embolden their own Shiites, who will be egged on by Iran.
Rather than reassure the Sauds, now is an ideal time to, for the first time since Kennedy, insist on changes in the regime. Democratization is only one important step. The U.S. should demand an end to support for terrorist groups and the financing of radical Islamic schools and mosques. Obama should insist on ending the apartheid policy toward women and other human rights abuses. Finally, he should pressure them to take measures to demonstrate their willingness to make peace with Israel.
It has always been the case the Saudis needed us more than we needed them and this is a unique opportunity to use the political, economic and military leverage we have to insist that they show a commitment to our values and interests for the benefit of their people and our security.
Bard is right, of course. Unfortunately, the first thing he has to do is to get President Obama to stand erect in the presence of King Abdullah.
What could go wrong?
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Obama, our friends the Saudis, Saudi King Abdullah
Could the House of Saud come tumbling down?
What would happen if 'our friends, the Saudis' were no longer our friends? Karen Elliott House writes in the Wall Street Journal that the consequences could be quite serious and the chances of the
House of Saud falling are increasing.
In any authoritarian regime, instability seems unthinkable up to the moment of upheaval, and that is true now for Saudi Arabia. But even as American influence recedes across the Middle East, the U.S. soon may face the staggering consequences of instability here, in its most important remaining Arab ally. While a radical regime in Egypt would threaten Israel directly but not America, a radical anti-Western regime in Saudi Arabia—which produces one of every four barrels of oil world-wide—clearly would endanger America as leader of the world economy.
Thirty years of visiting Saudi Arabia, including intensive reporting over the past four years, convinces me that unless the regime rapidly and radically reforms itself—or is pushed to do so by the U.S.—it will remain vulnerable to upheaval. Despite the conventional wisdom that Saudi Arabia is unique, and that billions in oil revenue and an omnipresent intelligence system allow the regime to maintain power by buying loyalty or intimidating its passive populace, it can happen here.
The many risks to the al Saud family's rule can be summed up in one sentence: The gap between aged rulers and youthful subjects grows dramatically as the information gap between rulers and ruled shrinks. The average age of the kingdom's trio of ruling princes is 83, yet 60% of Saudis are under 18 years of age. Thanks to satellite television, the Internet and social media, the young now are well aware of government corruption—and that 40% of Saudis live in poverty and nearly 70% can't afford a home. These Saudis are living Third World lives, suffering from poor education and unable to find jobs in a private sector where 90% of all employees are imported non-Saudis. Through new media the young compare their circumstances unfavorably with those in nearby Gulf sheikhdoms and the West.
...
What these reform-minded princes fail to understand—or at least acknowledge to foreigners—is the degree to which many young Saudis no longer respect or fear the royal family. Rather, they increasingly resent the indignity inherent in having to beg princes for favors that should be a public right.
Frustrated by these daily indignities, young Saudis experiment with drugs, steal cars and vandalize government property. Saudis at all levels of society are becoming increasingly lawless, emulating their leaders in doing whatever they can get away with. A recent target of youthful ire is a new camera system that tickets speeders. The system has been repeatedly vandalized by youth who claim that their fines enrich the Minister of the Interior, who is also responsible for the kingdom's invasive intelligence agencies. In choosing this target, young Saudis protest both royal corruption and state intrusion into their lives.
Still, most ordinary Saudis do not crave democracy. They fear that traditional tribal divisions, coupled with a lack of social and political organizations, would lead to mayhem—or to even greater domination by the conservative religious establishment that is well-organized through the kingdom's 70,000 mosques. If in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood is considered a potential threat, its Saudi equivalent already dominates Saudi society.
What Saudis hunger for are standard services provided by far less wealthy governments: good education, jobs, decent health care. They also want to be able to speak honestly about the political and economic issues that affect their lives. Yet when a professor of religion at Imam University dared in November to suggest on the Internet that Saudis be permitted to take public their private discussions on succession, he was jailed.
"The gap between reform here and the demands of our young is widening," warns a senior prince. "It is a race against time because the young are tired of the status quo, tired of talk." Saudi Arabia is not Egypt. But even in this most shrouded and supposedly most stable of Arab societies, time is running out.
Well, I sure hope they don't expect Obama to do anything about this.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Obama, Egyptian regime change, Saudi Arabia, Saudi King Abdullah, Saudi Royal Family
Smart power: Saudi Arabia to make up any 'shortfalls' in US aid to Egypt
How's that
smart power going Barack?
US President Barack Obama spoke with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia Wednesday to discuss events in Egypt. The Saudi King reportedly said that in the case that the United States withdraws its financial support of Cairo, that his kingdom would prop up Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's regime, The Times reported.
According to the report, the Saudi king told Obama not to push Mubarak too hard, so as not to humiliate him amid the ongoing protests demanding his ouster.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Obama, Egyptian regime change, Hosni Mubarak, Saudi King Abdullah, smart power
Backlash against Obama in Saudi Arabia and the UAE
Remember how I
warned that there would be a price to pay with Saudi Arabia and others for the US abandonment of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak? We're starting to
see some of that.
In deciding to set itself against Mr. Mubarak, a U.S. ally for decades, the U.S. is now facing the disquiet of other friendly Arab governments, who have long provided support for American policy goals. Meanwhile, Islamists in the region, including Hamas and Hezbollah, believe they are on the ascent as U.S. allies falter.
Such a scenario was one that defenders of the Middle East's status quo warned was possible, and shows how Mr. Obama's options were all, in some sense, unpalatable. The president was criticized early in the unrest for not clearly favoring antigovernment protesters. Now, having done so, he might have alienated key regional U.S. partners in the fight against al Qaeda and Iran. People familiar with the situation said Israel, the U.S. closest ally, has privately echoed Arab concerns about a U.S. push to kick out Mr. Mubarak, and worries Washington underestimates domestic Egyptian support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties.
It is unclear how much sway the Saudis have with Mr. Mubarak's regime in Cairo, given that the extent of its financial aid to Egypt isn't known. The U.S. gives Cairo about $2 billion a year. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are major trading partners, and experts say Saudi and Egyptian intelligence services have especially close ties.
Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud has harshly criticized Egyptian protesters in a statement carried by the Saudi state news agency, describing them as "infiltrators" bent on destabilizing Egypt and the region, accusing them of "malicious sedition."
"You don't need to read between the lines too much to see [the Saudis] are in favor of stability," said Richard Fontaine, an analyst with the Center for New American Security and a former adviser to Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Senior officials from the U.A.E., another key regional ally, have said in recent days that the unraveling of Mr. Mubarak's government threatens to provide breathing room for Islamic extremists and Tehran. Egyptian security forces have been among the most aggressive in seeking to combat Hamas and Hezbollah, Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups that receive their arms from Iran and Syria.
"What hurts men and women as well as the leadership in Egypt hurts us all, and our standing with Egypt is an urgent need," U.A.E. Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan said on a visit to Iraq this week. "But our disapproval is of certain parties who might try to exploit the situation with an external agenda."
Another Arab official from a government aligned with Washington said the Obama administration seems to be humiliating Mr. Mubarak, despite his close cooperation over the years. This could lessen the willingness of Arab states to cooperate with Washington in the future, said the official.
"[The Saudis] are at odds with the U.S. position, publicly pushing Mubarak out. And frankly so are we—this isn't how you handle issues in region," said the Arab official. "Egypt needs to be treated with respect."
I have a sick feeling that Israel is going to be asked to pay the price to clean up Obama's relations with the Arab countries through 'concessions' to the 'Palestinians' (remember how the Madrid Conference came about in 1991?).
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Obama, Hosni Mubarak, Israel, Middle East peace process, Saudi King Abdullah, United Arab Emirates
Wikileaks cables: Saudis reject linkage of Iran with 'peace process'
Everyone who writes a political blog will undoubtedly have their favorite Wikileaks cable out of the thousands that were leaked to the public on Sunday. So far, at least, this one is mine.
The argument that the Obama administration has used on Israel to try to push it into making a bad deal with the 'Palestinians' is the argument that if only Israel would make peace with the 'Palestinians,' the US would be able to assemble a coalition to oppose Iran's nuclear weapons. This argument is known as 'linkage' and it has been used to tie 'peace' with the 'Palestinians' to just about everything the West wants the Arab world to do from democracy to granting equal rights to women to bombing Iran to allowing freedom of religion. That argument was rejected in March 2009 - at least with respect to forming a coalition to deprive Iran of a nuclear capability - by
Saudi King Abdullah in a meeting with Obama's anti-terror adviser, John 'al-Quds' Brennan (Hat Tip:
Martin Kramer via
Twitter).
IRAN
8. (S) A "HEATED EXCHANGE": The King noted that Iranian FM Mottaki had been "sitting in that same seat (as Brennan) a few moments ago." The King described his conversation with FM Mottaki as "a heated exchange, frankly discussing Iran's interference in Arab affairs." When challenged by the King on Iranian meddling in Hamas affairs, Mottaki apparently protested that "these are Muslims." "No, Arabs" countered the King, "You as Persians have no business meddling in Arab matters." The King said the Iranians wanted to improve relations and that he responded by giving Mottaki an ultimatum. "I will give you one year" (to improve ties), "after that, it will be the end." [Lest anyone think that the Arabs and the Persians have forgotten their rivalry. CiJ]
9. (S) "SPARE US YOUR EVIL": The King expressed hope the U.S. would review its Iran policy and "come to the right conclusion." Brennan responded that President Obama was personally reviewing U.S. Iran policy and wanted to hear the King's thoughts. Abdullah asserted that Iran is trying to set up Hizballah-like organizations in African countries, observing that the Iranians don't think they are doing anything wrong and don't recognize their mistakes. "I said (to Mottaki) that's your problem," recounted the King. Abdullah said he would favor Rafsanjani in an Iranian election, were he to run. He described Iran not as "a neighbor one wants to see," but as "a neighbor one wants to avoid." He said the Iranians "launch missiles with the hope of putting fear in people and the world." A solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict would be a great achievement, the King said, but Iran would find other ways to cause trouble. "Iran's goal is to cause problems," he continued, "There is no doubt something unstable about them." He described Iran as "adventurous in the negative sense," and declared "May God prevent us from falling victim to their evil." Mottaki had tendered an invitation to visit Iran, but Abdullah said he replied "All I want is for you to spare us your evil." Summarizing his history with Iran, Abdullah concluded: "We have had correct relations over the years, but the bottom line is that they cannot be trusted."
...
11. (S) A DANGEROUS NEIGHBORHOOD: Brennan responded that the Saudis lived in a dangerous neighborhood with Iran across the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia sharing a long border with Yemen, and with a number of other troublesome countries nearby. Brennan noted that we have a lot of work to do in the Middle East together. The King responded that the world,s attention was focused on the region. He further stated that he believed that the U.S. could help in this sensitive region, but that we should not take matters lightly. Brennan noted that President Obama is fully aware of the dangers in the region, that the U.S. knew that it had to remain involved in constructing a solution, and that we would seek the King,s counsel in dealing with the many issues in the Middle East. The King asked if that included Iran. Brennan responded that it did. Brennan said that we had our eyes wide open to Iranian ambitions, that we were not nave to the dangers Iran posed to Saudi Arabia, and that Iran could not be allowed to succeed in its destabilizing activites. Brennan observed that the President had ordered a complete review of U.S. Iran policy and made reference to a passage in the President,s letter that we needed to test Iran,s intentions to cease its destabilizing behavior and live up to its international obligations. Brennan further observed that the U.S.-Saudi partnership had to remain strong and that together, and with others, we needed to thwart Iran,s nuclear ambitions. "That is important," responded the King. Finally, Brennan said the President wanted the King to know he had a good friend in the White House who would be willing to assist in any way that he could. The King thanked Mr. Brennan, said he appreciated the sentiments, said that he had great respect for President Obama, and reflected that we had been great friends for many years and would remain friends as our disagreements were minor.
Here's another curious point from the same cable. American diplomats in this region are constantly saying that no meeting with an Arab leader is complete without a half-hour dressdown over US policy on Israel. Well, look what this cable labels as "THAT WITHOUT WHICH NO SAUDI MEETING IS COMPLETE:"
Abdullah said "as a friend" that "it was a mistake" to limit access of Saudi citizens to the U.S., since "this damages bilateral relations and the image of the U.S. in Saudi Arabia." The King noted there were 60,000 Saudi students abroad, about one third of whom were in the U.S., and "others would have gone" but for the difficulties in gaining access to the U.S. The King noted that for many years very senior Saudi officials, including Prince Saud al-Faisal, had studied in the U.S. He then noted that Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., Adel al Jubeir (who was interpreting for the King) had studied in the U.S. and was "half American" as a result. He also said he was aware of, and appreciated, Ambassador Fraker's efforts to improve the visa situation "even though there were people in Washington who fought him." Finally, he observed that anyone from Saudi Arabia who studies in the U.S. inevitably becomes a friend and advocate of the United States and that we only hurt ourselves by cutting off this flow of students.
Heh.
So why does the Obama administration keep insisting that they would have a much easier time assembling a coalition against Iran if we were to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines (which former Israeli ambassador to the UN Abba Eban famously termed 'Auschwitz borders') and let the 'Palestinians' have their reichlet? I believe that there are two reasons. One is that Obama really believes that there is a 'fierce moral urgency' to cut Israel back and establish a 'Palestinian state.' The other is that he just doesn't like us.
Labels: Barack Obama, Iranian nuclear program, linkage, Middle East peace process, Saudi King Abdullah
